Ludvikus is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_2.
]] Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character
Preceded by
18
Followed by
19
The Protocols
Hi! I've fixed navigation bar. If you'll need any help with the template you can ask me and I'll see what I can do. And thanks for the barnstar. M0RD00R18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the difference is that (<br />) is in XHTML and (<br>) is in HTML. I really hope that explains something to you, because it does not say a lot to me :), because I'm absolute n00b in any of those languages myself. M0RD00R17:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archived
I've archived everything except the material above. Hope this is what you expected. If not, let me know and I will undo it. Banno21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:91e2 1.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI05:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ludvikus, I contributed to a discussion on this subject. I hope you will accept this in good faith (from a fellow new-user): there are no policies on conduct there - it is pretty well up to you to adopt the tenets of good faith. It is different to this place, I suppose you are becoming aware of that. I look forward to your contribs, here and there. Regards, Cygnisinsignis19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse most of your position, I am unconcerned if you have not considered the tract older than it is. Nor am I assuming a firm positon, I want to communicate two things to you. Please heed the suggestions made by others, it will not be solved yesterday - slow down. Secondly, have you ever considered that your energy promotes the document as much anything? Regards, Cygnisinsignis20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear some more from you. I'm aware of what happened in 1903, 1905, 1906, ..., 1920, ..., but am unaware of what you meant by Ancient Times (I'm paraphrasing you). Could you explain? Peace, --Ludvikus 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved the comment here, source is a library. It shares a common theme with other libraries; if you talk too much, a very stern looking person will come and say one word. Or point to a sign with that word displayed - with an exclamation point! Am I being too obtuse, am I beating around the bush - well, yes. I want you to happen on the answer yerself ... As for forgery scholarship, I'm not going to add energy to that. Your misquote (paraphrasing), is a reference to several documents to emerge in europe, prior to the revolution. If you want the information that will show the document you are serving is an feeble adaptation of this, I can forward the scans of the literature. I estimate this will be around $45 US dollars in my costs, no charge for my labour. Alternatively you can go and look it up at a library. Don't forget to note the tranquil atmosphere, and the effect your persistent questioning has on the people there. Cygnisinsignis18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Post
Talk page apparently got lost during the moves. Currently it is here [2]. Now administrator needs to delete current talk page to make a room for a move. M0RD00R14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But why hide behind your new pseudonym? You are misleading others into believing that there are more than one editor who subscribes to your position! --Ludvikus22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's hiding? My signature is linked to my user pages. I've been using that signature for years now and I don't feel any obligation to change just because some people don't understand the mechanics of Wikipedia. I have considered changing my username to my signature, but it is too inconvenient to type the ≠ symbol. I think most editors don't have a problem figuring out the connection between signatures and usernames. older ≠ wiser23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. That is not at all the case. Please compare the revision history of both pages. I've presented a simplified timeline on my talk page. older ≠ wiser03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that you added this report to WP:AN/3RR. Now, I understand why you placed that there, but that isn't quite the proper page. I'm actually not sure exactly where to put it, but my best guess would be on WP:AN/I, the Administrator's noticeboard for Incidents in general. Regards, You Can't See Me!05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing article, thanks! Someone (non-identified dipper-in) has removed your sentence about Lacey's comment. If instead of saying 'it is probably true that...' you simply wrote 'Lacey states...' then no-one could argue with the statement or its suitability for WP. However I can't see at a glance who Lacey is, and that statement would want a footnote. All the best, Sedgefoot06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who Lacey is either, that's what I'm saying. Who does? I was just browsing this interesting article you'd been working on and noticed when I made this post to you that an IP number editing had removed a significant sentence from it. I wondered if it was because no-one had referenced Lacey. [3] So I thought I'd better give you the tip-off that Lacey had taken a run-out powder, so to speak, and his quotation with him. I was intrigued by the article and trying to help. Best wishes, Sedgefoot22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know what you were both talking about! It's this [4]:
CULTURAL DESK
BOOKS OF THE TIMES
By WALTER GOODMAN
FORD: The Men and the Machine. By Robert Lacey. Illustrated. 778 pages. Little, Brown. $24.95.
FORD is a workmanlike assemblage by an English writer of a great American family saga.
Robert Lacey carries us briskly through almost a century of corporate fortunes
(Model A, Model T, Mustang) and misfortunes (Edsel, Pinto).
He makes admirably clear the technical and marketing considerations
that have gone into each new or revised model
and provides plenty of opportunity along the way to view the ...
July 9, 1986
I do not, and would not, call another another user a Jew-hater on Wikipedia. However, I am not responsible for the "suggestions" that come out of the use of antisemitic expressions. --Ludvikus15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother answering both places. As I already said elsewhere: Yes, you are exactly responsible for those "suggestions", and the next one will be your last. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a Wikipedian who says that we are responsible for our "suggestions" why do you suggest a threat above? Are you trying to scare me? What do you suggest by "the next one will be your last"? You and I know each other as Wikipedians. I am completely surprised by your use of such an uncivil expression. It clearly suggests a threat. Do you not see that? And it is provocative and inflammitory. It is not the way for one to get someone to conform to Wikipedia rules. And I am especially surprised that it comes from you, whom I recognize as a Wikipedian for some time back. Please clarify yourself. Are you trying to scare me with that suggested threat of yours? --Ludvikus15:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scare you? I guess so; if fear of being blocked will stop you from making personal attacks, then that's what I'm intending. But perhaps appealing to your desires will work better: If you desire to continue editing Wikipedia, you need to stop suggesting anti-semitism on the part of those who you are having edit disagreements with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's much, much better, JP. Thanks very much for your clarification. Much appreciated, Cowboy Gordon - you look good sitting on your horse on your Homepage. But should I have said "high horse" and "get of of it"? --Ludvikus16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to try to delete the Original research on it. I maintain that Wikipedia requires that we state what scholars said - it's not a place where Wikipedians should speculate "Why so many Jews were Bolsheviks." Thanks. --Ludvikus00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the antisemitism in the article.
I have this feeling that you see the term Bolsheviks as being pejorative. Is that the case ? I am a secular Jew and have no more problem with being referred to as a Bolshevik or a communist even though that is not how I would describe myself. Do you have the same problem with the moniker Jewish philosophers or Jewish celebrities. ? Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely mistaken. The fact is that Jewish Bolshevism is an Antisemitic expression, and historicall speaking, it was used so exclusively; it has no Marxist, Communist, or Bolshevik meaning whatsoever. Do you not know that? --Ludvikus10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a new one on me. But I intend to do a bit of wiki and google research on it. I want to know how widespread that view is. I do know that a lot of Jews hate anything remotely similar to Marxism, especially Stalinism . Albion moonlight 23:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight06:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean: "One Jew is to many"? Are you really Jewish? Would you have liked to work as Stalin's assistant? Do you like the cold - would you mind living in Siberia? How many Englishman are Stalinists, any why? Do Frenchman love Stalin? Are these questions important? --Ludvikus12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I really am Jewish but your implication seems to be that you believe your assertions about Jewish Bolshevism being is common knowledge. I do not believe that it is common knowledge. If you believe that it is perhaps you should create a request for comment on the articles talk page. I think that once you realize that it isn't common knowledge even amongst Jews you may change your mind and realize that you may be pushing a Pov.
If you referred to the other editors as being antisemitic you are guilty of making a personal attack on other Wikipedians and should apologize. If you did not make such an accusation then you may have a legitimate complaint. If you moved an article without consensus then you broke a rule. I have done nothing to deserve your ire. I hope you manage to work things out with Jpgordan. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re. Troll
The thing is, an internet troll on wikipedia is just an internet troll on wikipedia. We don't need a Troll (Wikipedia) article. The header text about wikipedia trolls should be more than sufficient. Apologies if I came across as impolite- you may find that a bit of politeness/smarminess can come in handy to get around stubborn people when editors who are particularly idealistic about wikipedia get dragged in. Not that I've actually learnt that lesson by now. Nimmo11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been wading my way through policy pages, and I can't find anything explictly stating what I believe I've seen a number of times in admin descisions, which is that self-referential pages talking about Wikipedia are heavily discouraged. If you feel that there needs to be more information on wikipedia trolls, a link on the internet troll page to WP:TROLL might be the best option, if you're willing to defend it. Apologies for the talk page mess, hope you have a good day. Nimmo12:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, that was a bit of vandalism on the part of my mates while they were a bit pissed that I mirrored to my userpage. Could look a bit suspect. Have noticed that merge discussion before, probably will take another look later. Nimmo13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a stub type for antisemitica is not viable. The permanent categories should suffice for that. Would these go under history, or perhaps just non-fiction? Why wouldn't they be political? Her Pegship (tis herself)20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that these works fall into the category of controversial literature. What I don't know is which of these stub categories would be more appropriate than Category:Political book stubs:
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or notability of the topic
Find a good number[6] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
currently be marked with stub;
currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
not marked as a stub.
Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.
^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.
DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which is already being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between diffferent pages.
I've got no opinion on whether this list should exist - I've nominated it purely procedurally to get a consensus before you start expanding it, as - while it's certainly a potentially valid list - there's also potential for it to become a permanent edit-war battleground, and I'd like to get a broader consensus before you - or anyone else - start adding names to it. — iridescent(talk to me!)13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied more fully on the AfD discussion so others can see it - the problem's not with the people who undoubtedly would be included, but with the permanent "George Bush once joined a golf club that didn't allow Jews, that makes him an antisemite" POV edit warring that's likely to stem from it — iridescent(talk to me!)14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that qualification regarding an incident you describe would be deemed as antisemitic, no one in their right mind would say that "George Bush was a notable antisemite," or that he was a "notorious one." Substantial antisemitic conduct is the intent of the qualification. A "hymie" remark (you know who I mean) is insufficient to qualify someone as notable or notorious on the issue. --Ludvikus14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are not areas of a particular interest to me. However, I appreciate that homosexuals get abused, and convicts often suffer undeservedly. But are we goung to give in to the irrational? As encyclopedists we have an obligation to the truth. You are not yet making any headway with me with your suggestions, or implications, that we exercise self-censorships because we're going to be unable to defend ourselves against all the idiots in the world. Best to you, Ludvikus15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion to Category
You might want to run it past User:BrownHairedGirl - in my experience, she's generally the best judge of whether a category or list is likely to be viable or be deleted, and what changes if any need to be made. As Category:Antisemites has already been deleted, you may get opposition in recreating it. (Incidentally, while I currently live in London, I'm not a "fine British chap" but an expat New York Jew.) — iridescent(talk to me!)16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well than, if you tell me your age, I'll tell you if you qualify for membership in an organization I'm thinking of forming. It will be called the Elders of Zion - antisemites maybe gave us a good idea which we may have overlooked. Do you think we could create such an entity? It's aim, of course, would be world domination.
Category:Notable or notorious antisemites
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Listed here are individuals who played some notable role, or a notorious one, in history, literature, or publication.Please note that mere incident(s) involving some apparent antisemitic conduct or speach is insufficient to qualifythe inclusion of a person on this list. Please be very careful in your selections. Remember also that this is nota place to make your own personal judgments. Neither should it be a place or space to libel or slander a living personwith whose views you strongly disagree. Nor is it a place to list someone who exercised poor judgment in the choiceof words on a particular occasion.
Pages in category "Notable or notorious antisemites"
There are 10 pages in this section of this category.
A
Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich
B
Boris Brasol
F
Henry Ford
G
G. Butmi
H
Reinhard HeydrichHeinrich HimmlerAdolf Hitler
L
L. Fry
P
Pavel Krushevan
W
Nesta Helen Webster
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Notable_or_notorious_antisemites"
Category: Antisemitism
As a matter of fact there was a confusion as to a Category, or an Artcle. I wanted the former, and it exists now. The Former generates a List automatically. So all's well now. --Ludvikus17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that category creates a list but the problem is it will not take long before someone nominates this category for deletion, I'm afraid. Similar category was already deleted once. And having word "notorious" in the title will not help. This is why I suggest changing the name to Ideologists of antisemitism for instance. M0RD00R17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:425px-Naciones_Unidas_3_repaired_and.png.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. I only touched up the UN (WW II) image (it was damaged). I think it's pre-1923. But somebody else found it before me. So do your research further please. --Ludvikus11:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reply to me, please copy your msg to my page, I almost never check other user pages for messages for me. I am not sure I understand your point. There are notable antisemites that belong to Wikipedia and sad unnotable individuals who don't. We don't call the notable notable in categories since we would have to insert it everywhere.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of nominations for deletion is considered vandalism. Please don't do that again. And nominations for deletion are never signed on the article page. If you had gone to the CfD page, you would have seen my signature, and that my nomination was not capricious. Corvus cornix17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, Asshole, it was a mistake on my part for which I've apologized to you on your Talk page. Where have you been - on the Moon? Instead of wasting time on this shit, why don't you pay attention to the discussion there, at the Deletion proposal cite? Furthermore, my mistake was corrected a while ago - probably when you were asleep. --Ludvikus17:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since both pages have a history, other than being a redirect of each other, the move can only be done by an administrator. The naming of the template is not a huge issue, though, as it's not usually user visible, and thus I think, for the sake of simplicity, having the name without quotes, is probably the better way to go. Regards, -- Jeff300014:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had not edited the original page after you had moved it to the page with one quote, I would have been able to move it back, but at this point you need to ask for administrator help, possibly at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The Template, while related to the book, is about a whole bunch of ideas (since it is included in many pages) and thus does not need the quotes for simplicity. A very small minority of people will see the title of the template, so just keep it simple and ask to have it moved to the page with no quotes. Regards, -- Jeff300015:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider Wikipedia's rules on canvassing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so votestacking is a disservice to your cause, especially if it is determined you are canvassing to influence the results. / edg☺★00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've read the rule. You're mistaken in it's application to me. I've contact that One editor who has actually Used this Category. Accordingly, unless he knows that it's up for Deletion, his use of it is meaningless. So you are mistaken. --Ludvikus01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the Rule. It seems that you're mistaken in its application to me. It is not an Absolute rule. In fact, it's very clear that there are circumstances in which canvassing is proper, and good for Wikipedia. Please reconsider you're observation. --Ludvikus01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note carefully the exceptions to the general rule - and examine more precisely what you believe I did wrong. Thereafter I expect you to get back to me with an appropriate Wikipedian response. Thank you, --Ludvikus01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)a[reply]
I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg☺★01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonesense. He's using the Category. You are being Pedantic. We are not in front of a USA voting booth. The guy is a User of the Category. He clearly believes in it. So you are playing with formalities. I'm not Telling him how to Vote. I'm telling him that he will not be able to Classify his characters under that Antisemitic Category unless he Votes Not to Delete. Cann't you see the point. The guy is already Converted User of the System. So are you going to Split Hairs with me? You are simply Wrong, and I hope you can admit it.
And if you insist on splitting hairs - look carefully at the word "multiple". Contacting One Editor is not Multiple. Or what do you think? One editor is the same as Multiple editors? --Ludvikus01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soliciting a vote from someone known in advance to favor a certain outcome is blatantly votestacking. I'm not really interested in arguing this. I just wanted you to be aware that you may be crossing a line. / edg☺★01:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. And after carefully studying your view, I've come to the conclusion that I've done the right thing. And for the record, here's the first part of the Wiki rule your concerned with (showing the footnotes):
'''[[Canvassing]]''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence
a community discussion.
<ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to
automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref>
Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written
to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and
are generally considered disruptive.
This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.
<ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards
an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community.
An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.
Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.
If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are
contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#StrangerInParadise is disruptive]].</ref>
A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.
Therefore, Ludvikus did not break the rule in its literal sense, but, as a general rule of "Wikiquette" telling a user to vote a certain was in a discussion is frowned upon. To explain further, the message was only placed on one user's talk page, so it is not canvassing (at least described word-for-word in the canvassing policy), but it is something that is generally looked upon with differing degrees of dislike. Had Ludvikus placed the message on multiple users' talk pages, then it would be a clear violation. As it stands, however, while Ludvikus did not violate the policy, I suggest that they refrain from posting messages like that on talk pages. Hope that's clear enough, and happy editing, ( arky )02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Wikipedia is producing. First of all, I had no idea of the existence of this rule. And I'm glad to have learned of it this early. The principle I operate under is Fairness - which is at the basis of all systems reflecting any degree of Justice.
Now back to my point. I think it is consistent with the Canvassing rule at Wikipedia for me to contact any editor who is now actively using the Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. And that telling such an editor to Vote to Keep is certainly not Disruptive. It is absurd to think that by so saying I'm influencing that editor. Such an editor obviously believes in the legitimacy of the Category - otherwise why is (s)he using it? --Ludvikus02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, it is perfectly OK for me to go to the Talk page and Solicit Votes - to Vote to Keep the Category - or does anyone advise me not to do so? If not, why not? --Ludvikus02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not disallowed by the policy to do this to one editor, it certainly is not allowed for you to do this to multiple editors. As for soliciting votes, something like "X was nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ~~~~" is perfectly acceptable to post on multiple pages, but asking for a specific vote is not. Cheers, ( arky )02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally it sounds like I've reached a Wikipedian Judge (in Real Life)! The people I wish to Canvass (probably precisely because I've been reprimanded) are the Users of the Category: Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. What I'm saying is that to tell them to Vote not to delete is simply preacing to the converted. Every editor I would Canvass would be an editor who's actively using the Category. He's/She's clearly a believer in its desirability. Therefore initiating such contacts would Not constitute Disruptive behavior. And so I should be permitted to engage in such Canvassing. Do you understand my point? I would not be contacting any neutral, or opposed, editors! So there's no disruption whatsoever. I would simply be informing editors who use the Category at present that they would not be able to use it unless they Vote to Keep. The point is obvious to me. But have I made it clear to others? --Ludvikus02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Fate has conspired to prevent me from being able to contact any more Wikipedians than one: User:Wedineinheck! There is no other User (besides myself) whose actively classifying bio articles under this Category. So I cannot violate the rule - requiring Multiple user contacts - even if I wanted to. --Ludvikus02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your point. I think it is absolutely wonderful that you are informing users that a category they use may be deleted, and I can see eye to eye with you perfectly on the fact that they should be told that one of the categories they use might be no more. However, the canvassing policy states that you cannot post messages on talk pages that say specifically to vote one way or another. It doesn't say, though, that you can't inform them of the discussion. If you are saying this to users who use the category without telling them they should vote one way or another, they will probably vote to keep the category anyway, as they use it. Thus, you can effectively not violate the canvassing policy, and still get editors who use the category to participate in the discussion. Hope that makes sense :) ( arky )02:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And it's good not to be talking to the wall for a change. On the other hand, is one of us (just) a brilliant computer simulating human behavior? Best to you, and Peace! --Ludvikus02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*:::It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[8][reply]
In response to this post, soliciting !votes to Keep the Category on editor talk pages may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion. Anyone who disrupts a deletion discussion may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believed you knew Polish. So I hoped you also knew Russian, because Poland was under Soviet control in the last half of the previous century. --Ludvikus16:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Would you be interested in DYK debate [9] on Ghetto benches. Apparently there are some users doubting racial nature of this discriminatory act. What's your opinion? Cheers. M0RD00R17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold your horses. The article on such delicate subject has to remain narrowly focused. Nothing prevents you from creating wider topic review articles but this article is devoted to a specific aspect of Polish antisemitism. Don't throw everything that comes to mind to Wikiepdia articles at random. --Irpen19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no moves taking place now (you're talking about ancient history by Wiki time).
Wikipedia encourages Boldness - especially in the face of obvious error.
Whatever Moves I did, they were accepted, and things are stable now.
So stop waisting time being an un-necessary Wiki Policeman; your time would be better spent concentrating on sloppy work at best concerning the subject of Polish antisemitism.
Boldness is good when editing but by far less in moving. And even when editing Be bold but don't be reckless. Also, please be polite and concentrate on building a good encyclopedia overall, not trying to find every chance to insert issues closest to your heart left and right. Antisemitism is a horrible phenomenon, it needs to be covered but it needs to be covered properly. If you overpush, you undermine the credibility of this coverage in the eyes of the readers. --Irpen19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You appear sincere. But the problem with Jews was that they were Not pushy enough. Do not confuse my pasionate discussed at the antisemitic undertones of some of the articles I edit or attempt to cleanup, with the Cold Logic of which I believe I'm capable of. It was another editor who informed me of the horrible state of this article. And I find that it has already improved (in my eyes of course) since I was made aware of its existence. Right now I'm mostly concerned with the following: Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. It appears Wikipedians are more concerned that poor, unfortunate, victims will be inproperly, subjectively, or wrongly, classified as antisemites. --Ludvikus20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with current title, personally I am a fan of WP:UE I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to discuss it later. I don't mind even RfM. But there are some more serious issues to discuss now in and around this article such as a denial of racial nature of this act, attempts to portray it as a clash between Polish and Jewish extremist organizations (sic!), there all parts are equally to blame and so on. Of cause it is not easy not to loose temper in the face of such a blatant distortions of historical facts, but simply there is no other way than to stay calm and concentrated on important things. Let's have a quality time discussing what really matters. Cheers. M0RD00R20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghetto benches again
Quite to the contrary. Term Ghetto benches is used in English. Just click on this link [10]. How about continuing this discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. M0RD00R20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to that later. I understand that the possessive of "Ghetto" is "Ghetta." So shouldn't we have "Ghetta lawka"? --Ludvikus20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotus gave us the clue, I think. The 18 google hits show the use of scare quotes, like so: "bench ghetto" (or was it ghetto bench?).
Personally I would go with "bench ghetto", but the fact is that in academic sources mostly term "ghetto benches" is used. The usage of "ghetto benches" outnumbers "bench ghetto" by 10:1 ratio according to google books. M0RD00R21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Robert H. McNeal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Shawnpoo20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Alleged disruption message posted on my Talk page
You seem to think that a message was left here that wasmeant for me. And you seem to have posted it on my page. I have no idea what your talking about - and I wish you had not done that. You should contact the person who sent it and tell them that they have made a mistake. --Ludvikus02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly meant for you — examine the diff. Since Jreferee is answering a question for which you solicited an answer, I thought it would be polite to pass it along. Sorry if this causes problems — in the future I won't bother. / edg☺★02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was reckless of you to simply post an apparent editors threat to Block a user without the appropriate precaution that it be noticed by the parties involved. You should not have done that Cut & Paste. Since I'm not an inexperienced User, I was easily able to find out what has been done. But such reckless action could cause problems for another. Why didn't you simply tell the two parties what had happened? What you did is improperly fix an administrators un-sent apparent notice. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you? --Ludvikus03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies are not necessary, if your intent was to do good, which I now think it was. However, do you understand my point about the problems that could result? --Ludvikus03:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Public Domain. It will be in public domain in 2017. Please read the rules carefully about tags you are placing. the appropriate tag is {{book cover}}. PLease go to Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg and add fair use rationale as requested by the rules. Please notice carefully the restrictions where this image may be used in wikipedia. `'Míkka04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense! It's a 1921 imprint of a Title page. You do not seem to know the difference between that and a Book cover. And How your Arithmetic produced 2017 as the Copyright expiration date is a real mystery! It surely is not by Polish logic, which had attained a very high level of development by the time of the Second World War. --Ludvikus06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning: stop your insults or you will be blocked from editing. You are creating an unbearable atmosphere. Now back to the issue: public domain in the United States is counted 70 years after the death of the author. Henry Ford died in 1947. 1947+70=2017. Yes, I missed the point that it is not the book cover (BTW, you yorself wrote it is "book cover"). Please ask experts in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. `'Míkka06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Mikka. You're apparently unaware that for Works published before1923 the year of death of the author is irrelevant to the Copyright expiration date; all works, according to United States law, which had been published before 1923, are in the Public Domain. --Ludvikus06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Mikka here. Copyright for the books is held by the publisher not the author like for, say, painting and the clock starts ticking from the date of publication, not from the date of author's death. That said, Ludvikus, unless you change your demeanor, you will get blocked. --Irpen06:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen. It is not helpful to threaten me with being blocked by demanding that I change my demeaner. If there is something you do not like which I wrote, you should tell me exactly what it is - otherwise I have no idea what you find offensive; I find the writing on Jewish Bolshevism extremely offensive, and I would like you guys to change your demeanor in regard to that. Do you know what I want you to do by that? I imagine your answer is "No." --Ludvikus06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule in Wikipedia - that I know of - prohibiting "combative style of editing" or "aggressive talk page posts." Also, these terms of yours are POV interpretations. Again, I ask you to be more precise about exactly what it is that you do not like which I wrote - and next show me how I violated any Wikipedia rule? I do not think you could do that - simply because nothing of the kind exists. --Ludvikus06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've recently classified various imprints of the above as "religious book stubs"; that's a mistake; this stuff consists of various imprints, under different titles, which is/are in fact instances of plagiarism, forgery, and a hoax.
The fact that they are hoaxes does not change the fact that they were written as a political and religious attack against the Jews, thus making either of these classifications correct. Since we do not have a "hoax book stub", "plagiarism book stub" or "forgery book stub", I sorted it according to what we do have.
I did not turn the articles into anything. They are still in the controversial literature category, which is a parent category for Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which contains the articles (as well as the myriad other redundant categories the articles occupied). Fortunately, I don't care what happens to the categorization of the articles, as long as users can find them efficiently, which is what categorizing is for. I think that if it is important to you, you should revert the edits, rather than lecturing me.
As a scholar myself, I am in my right mind, and I resent the implication that no one but you really knows what the Protocols are about, or how to edit Wikipedia articles. If you cannot abide any changes to articles you have edited, then you are in the wrong place and should start your own website. Regards, Her Pegship (tis herself)04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not writing about you, and it's unfortunate that you take the observation personally. The subject of discourse is/are the so-called Protocols of Zion. If you deduce that you are not in your right mind because it is you who thinks these Protocols are religious texts - than that is your own problem, not mine. --Ludvikus04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you said: "No one in their right mind (except victims of antisemitism) take any imprint of "The Protocols", under whatever title, as either a political, or a religious, book." I did categorize it as both. Thus, you are the one implying I am not in my right mind, and I am the one refuting it. I reserve the right to respond to insults to my intelligence, implied or explicit. Her Pegship (tis herself)04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of hatred, bigotry, vileness, wickedness, antisemtism, racism, and Evil. Anyone who believes that the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a political, or a religious, text falls under all of these categories. Now you tell me, what do you think? --Ludvikus04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are implying that I am hateful, bigoted, vile, wicked, antisemitic, racist, and evil (see logic in my previous comment), and I will no longer respond to any post you make. Her Pegship (tis herself)04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in your own, personal, private views. You should look up the difference between general statement and particular statement. As I told you before, the subject of discourse is "The Protocols". As a Wikipedian we are both expected to assume good faith on each others part. But if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen; whatever your private beliefs are is your affair - that does not, however, entitle you to censor me in describing the nature of the readership or audience of the Protocols of Zion. Cheers, --Ludvikus04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please state the articles and the modifications to which you refer. I am unable to find the changes that you are talking about. 07:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there was vandalism before your contribution ([13]), which you did not revert. I did notice your contributions ([14], [15]) when I was reverting the vandalism to the article and I did paste in the sentence you added ([16]). I believe the anon who edited the article after you has fixed everything ([17]).
I take it your objection can be summed up as: you are objecting to having any of the poster, on the grounds that it is not only offensive, but also inaccurate, misleading, and it doesn't actually say anything about the role of the Chinese soldiers or assert their notability. Is this your reasoning? Ostap06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do find your argument convincing. The only thing I could say to try and compromise would be to have the image properly labeled as what it is and your other concerns addressed in the article, though I am not sure how one could actually go about completing these tasks. Perhaps it is better to just not have the poster. You do have good points. Cheers, Ostap06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. But why are you preaching to the converted? You've paraphrased my points so well, why don't you make your agreement known to our Polish cousins on the Talk page of the Article? --Ludvikus06:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not visited Yet. What city or town are you from?
I get it now! Your the editor who proposed the "the" for Ukraine. English grammar has no actual reason for the "the". It may sound more natural, but it actually really shouldn't. Consider it as unecessary as that image. And I come from Lviv. Ostap06:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no! I know that after the fall of Communism, (the) Ukraine determined that its official name is not The Ukraine, but Ukraine. However, I was only asking what the proper English is in the middle of a sentence:
I see. I don't see any grammatical reason to have a "the" even in that context. But, I suppose its really no big deal in text like that. Its most important when talking about the official name and what not. Some use it deliberately to be offensive, some have used it innocently all their lives and still do. I even talk to other Ukrainian immigrants who learned the "the" and still use it. Ostap07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's like: "I'm from the United States. Or I'm from the Netherlands, or the Vatican.
Where you born in Ukaraine? And if so, how old were you when you left? It's very important regarding the use of "the" in the English language. I have a friend, Turkey, Physicist now, but he came over to the US at 15. He still does not know when to use "the", and whent not to! --Ludvikus07:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Netherlands and The US are plural terms, hence the article. Some countries with adjective modifiers, such as the United Kingdom, or the Ukrainian SSR would require the "the" also. The Vatican I can not explain, I will give you that one. The best evidence on my behalf would be there is no "the Germany", "the France", the Brazil, the Turkey, ect. When talking about non-native speakers using articles correctly, then of course there is the issue of people whose native languages don't even have articles or the concept of them. You said you know its officially just Ukraine, so I don't think it really matters what you use when speaking. Best regards, Ostap07:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistaken on the plural rule. Here's another counterexample for you: I arrived in the United States and settled in the Bronx. The Rule is Pure Custom - nothing else. --Ludvikus07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter by saying that the pronounciation of the word itself sounds enough like a plural word to warrent the article. Ostap07:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. But we know something else. The name derives from Jonas Bronck, and it was his real estate that was known, by the Dutch, as Bronck's land. And there's no plural there, only the possessive. --Ludvikus07:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just stop Wikipedianizing, get ourselves a couple of beautiful Ukrainian blond girls and take them to the Riviera? Is it because we have two girls that it's the Riviera? --Ludvikus07:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but which Riviera? Just simply the riviera would be a geographic region, such as the west or the north or the pacific, not a country.
I'd hate to be a Wikipedianizer. I must now sign off and bid you good night, or morning, or whatever depending on your geographic position. Ostap07:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or two black girls from The Gambia[18][19]. But seriously, I have no idea about the article's usage. I try to get native speakers to copyedit everything I write, including on-wiki. Articles and prepositions are especially troublesome. Native speakers sometimes correct what I wrote though adding the to Ukraine. Personally, I have no idea which one is better. IMO, saying that the is somehow offensive is nonsense. I don't use it simply because currently the article-less form seems to prevail in modern English which makes it "correct". For the very same reason I use Kiev as the prevailing usage is the definition of the correct from in English, the language that does not have a regulating body, unlike Russian and Ukrainian where special branches of the Science Academies define what is correct. --Irpen08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a (friendly?) surprise Also, France, is the important (Culture, and all that) model of officially pronouncing "correct" linguistic usae! Since "the" is the most common word in English, it's probably the greatest source of errors for non-naitive English language speakers. I think we need a special Artilcle on this artcle. --Ludvikus12:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this discussion of proper article usage, and the very page we were talking about was wrong and I never noticed. Good catch. Ostap03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow the link? The page was titled Chinese in Russian Revolution, which is grammatically incorrect. You were the one who moved and added the "the" right? Ostap03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're funny, Ostrap! Here I am, trying to get the Article deleted, as well as the Poster, and you observe that I corrected the English usage in it, of the article "the." There's the Irony !!! --Ludvikus
Now that's even more funny. You see the Trees, and even the Leaves, Ostrap, but you don't see the Forest!!! Aren't you aware that User:Mikkai has Reverted my Deletion of the Poster for the 4rth time? You remind me of the joke about the woman (I'm making this up) who was told she had terminal Cancer, and she complained about the little Scratch on her nose. --Ludvikus03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a complex way of saying you want me to remove the poster from the article? I was not even aware that it was re-added. Ostap03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that you are trying to get the article deleted, where is the place to vote? I, Ostap would like to place a vote. Ostap03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, my apologies for not attending to The Morning Post: I have been travelling. In any case, the issue seems to have settled. The same approach might be advisable in the present case - wait and see, or take it to talk. Banno08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I employed the word "true" in my mistaken edit of the article in question. "Truth" is not the issue in plagiarism and I regret it if I seemed to imply as much.
As a matter of fact, the history of anti-Semitism is not an obsession with me (as it clearly is with so many people) and I had not heard of either the 1903 Znamya edition of the Protocols or of Maurice Joly's 19th Century French political satire. My sole reading in the field of what I suppose we should begin calling "Protocols of the Elders of Zion Studies" was the article I had edited, which makes no mention of these. I got the impression from reading it that this Russian fakir was the original source of the slander.
I would agree with you that I am at fault for not having done wider reading in this area and having much-too-naively blundered in, like a barefoot child into a minefield. Writtenright07:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]
Thank you for your very kind and understanding words of forgiveness. I am truly sorry for my bad edit, and I thank you for changing it back to plagiarism. I am honoured by your request to help with the Chinese in the Russian Revolution article, and am eager to get to it as soon as possible. You will have to check it carefully, as my knowledge of Russian history leaves a great deal to be desired! Thanking you again, Writtenright18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]
Why I left out the Japanese
I believe I left out the Japanese because the Japanese, at that time, were not traditionally allies of the Russians, and would be unlikely to be working for the Russian Red Army. There was a war called the Russo-Japanese War which had taken place just a few years earlier--didn't you know that? Also, I don't believe the Japanese, who had modernized themselves in the 19th century, retained such long mustaches such as are typically used in caricatures of Chinese (or, at least, were used as such in the silent films of the first decades of the 20th century). Badagnani07:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor, named Temur, said, "On the picture there are some men who look like Chinese but they can be anything from Buryats, Mongols, Kalmyks, Tuvanians, Altai-men, Kyrgizs, Kazakhs, Chukchas, or Crimean Tatars." However, if it is true that the White Russians had as a primary part of their propaganda the (racist) claim that Russia would be taken over by Chinese, Jews, etc., then they probably are Chinese. The skullcaps and long mustaches seem more typically Chinese to me than indicative of those other Central Asian ethnic groups. In my opinion, the poster is historically important, and interesting in this context. Badagnani07:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words - and you did it, Ostrap. Now let's see why the other editors prefer the anti-Chinese (and non-Christian people) Racist poster instead. --Ludvikus19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Ostrap, again, why are you preaching to the converted? Get to the Article and write what you believe - and subit this Map of Asia. --Ludvikus20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ludvikus, "I am throwing in my hat". For now, I would recommend you adress your concerns with the content of the article by adding clarification to the article itself. Good luck. Ostap02:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the Ukrainian article because, before I edited it, it was actually written from a pro-Polish and anti-Ukrainian perspective. I guess there are some other pretty important things going on. I should tell you though, Irpen is not Polish. I think the article still needs to be expanded and clarified and so on. Good luck with that and the other articles you edit. I see you edit the Protocols. I have never studied this, but I have heard what they say. I have read that they are being taught as fact in some middle eastern schools. Is this true? Ostap02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read once that they were the most influential and dangerous peices of hate literature ever created. I wanted to find out more about them so I did a little research (not an exhaustive study) and concluded the same as you. How anyone in history could ever believe such anti-Semitic, hateful nonsense amazed me. That this is still being taught as truth today is frightening. Ostap03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the editor who "controls" the Russian-language sources does not answer simple questions about them makes me doubt the information contained in the article. I've asked him several times now to address these questions and not insult other editors, but he seems only to be interested in doing the latter. If there were Chinese involved in the Russian Revolution, we should accurately document this, using the best sources available. But "we" doesn't exist when the editor who has provided the sources refuses to answer questions about them. Badagnani23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has been precisely my experience. But again, you're preaching to the converted. You'd better change you Vote on the Deletion Proposal page to reflect you current opinion - before it's too late to do so. Yours truly, --Ludvikus23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that The Protocols of Zion (imprints) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK09:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually funny, because it was not "me" who was "advising" you, it was the "advisory" template {{subst:[[Template:AFDWarningNew|AFDWarningNew]]|''Article title''}} that I placed here that "advises" automatically by creating this script here, that includes advice about what to do with another template. So it was a template advising about another template, as it were. Thanks, IZAK15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you have new articles to add for deletion, do so in their own submission. Changing an existing AfD, especially with edits that may be construed as WP:POINT issues, is not a good idea. Please stop. Thank you. -- Avi15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have comments to add, do so in such a way that it does not appear that you are refactoring a submission to AfD. Namely, in line with everyone else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avraham (talk • contribs) [22]
I see that you have now collected all your comments together, and added them in a grouo at the top of the AfD, and that this has been reverted. This is you last warning: stop, or you will be blocked. Like everyone else, you may add further comments in the course of the discussion in the manner described in WP:TPG, but that's all. No more refactoring, no more big blocks of Ludvikus's collected comments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the fine rules of WP. I'm involved now in a complex effort by very experienced Wikipedians to delete a set of articles. I therefore need asistance in seeing to it that there is a balance of fairness representing the other point of view. For example, I know that Wikipedia encvourages Boldness. What you call Moving was in fact a Good Faith effort to Rename an article. Best wishes, --Ludvikus16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, please read WP:BOLD; it does say don't be reckless. Moving an article (which is the same thing as renaming it) which is under discussion is reckless :)
As to the deletion discussion, anyone is entitled to nominate an article for deletion. Editors are then free to comment, and the closing admin assesses the arguments. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and a group of people saying "me too" carries no weight.
If you have good arguments for keeping the article, you should make them on the AFD page. The closing admin will weigh the arguments, so if you ant a balanced discussion, make sure that iur arguments are at least as good as the arguments on the other side. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You're the first WP editor who has given me some useful and valuable advice. (By the way, you, like so many others, you too are making the faitle[sic-can't spell it] that there's one book --Ludvikus
Ludvikus, you are still not getting it right at AfD. Let me explain it simply: if you have something to add, add it at the bottom of the discussion, and you won't get into trouble (unless your comment is uncivil etc). But don't keep on bashing your text in at the top of the nomination or you will get blocked. You've had several warnings, so please do listen to them! Apart from the risk of getting blocked, disruptive behaviour at AfD makes it less likely that the closing admin will find merit in your arguments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please please please do read WP:SPIDER. Really. It's very helpful here. --16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
Dear ludvikus, please read WP:NPA. Accusing other editors of antisemitism is offensive. Violations of NPA can lead to a block. Since it would be a shame to lose a knowledgeable editor such as you, please, tone down you language and comment. Remember: discuss content, not editors. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your talking about. You, for one are an editor whom I respect. Please let me know exactly what you mean. I certainly do not think it's you? Best to you, Piotrus, I am --Ludvikus16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But they have not bothered to tell me anything. In fact, Mikka, has insulted me many times, but I let it go. Whereas Irpen - as I see it - merely protects Mikka. I do not think I have said anything offensive to any of them. If they want to make peace with me, I am certainly willing to do that. We are all Human Beings. --Ludvikus17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I now realize you did not mean Irpen. I'm glad he's not angry with me. I'll get back to you later. I have to go. I hope we can all apologize to one canother. Best, --Ludvikus17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [23] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [24]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own opne obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, User:IZAK, for giving me the opportunity to defend myself against your charges.
You yourself are using the WP article word "shit." I say that the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion is/are shit. Do you deny that? Are you saying that they are not shit? Why? It seems, at least that your inconsistent. It also appears that you can use the word, but you will not let me do so. Why?
You quote my use of the word "Fork", then interject the word "fuck," which I did not use, and at the same time deny my right to make a funny, friendly, joke? why? You use the word which you denying me the right to use while you yourself use it. Why is it OK for you use that four-letter word, but you deny me the right to use a word which has four letters but is not even in fact a so-called "four-letter word"? Again you're inconsistent.
What's this, you think its OK to use "Jewish Bolshevism" against the Jewish people in general, but not OK to use "Stupid Poles" against the Polish people in general? Why is the former ethnic slur OK but not the latter. I think you cannot answer that either. You are just being inconsistent once again.
You even have the nerve to attack me further and accuse me of other such alleged transgression which you say you suspect exist. You yourself are now doing against me what you accuse I do against others. That's once more inconsistency on your part.
And you do it again with yet another attack on my character that i'm not "innocent" and that I cannot "fool" you. Do you not see that that is the very kind of conduct which you say I practice? Again you're being inconsistent.
At the very moment, while we speak, you maintain on a Project page the attack upon the integrity of my work by calling it "Bizarre." Now granted, that's not a word that falls under any of the above three categories. Nevertheless, I take it as a clear attach on my person. You alsi invoke that WP rule here and at least imply that I've violated such rule. But it's OK for you to summarize my work as bizarre, right? Again, inconsistency on your part.
Hmm Ludvik, you used words like "SHIT" and "fork you" ("stupid Poles" speaks for itself) and then you denied using them and you claim that I made false accusations. When I point out exactly what you said and explain to you what you said you complain that my explanation is too explicit. Now how ridiculous is that? IZAK13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia practice for WP:Articles for deletion discusions is for the nominator's reasons to be entered as part of the nomination, followed by discussion. You are welcome to join the discussion and provide any comments you like. However, your comments cannot be put in the same place as the nominator's. Please respect this. Best, --Shirahadasha17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a really large user page, with even the table of contents being quite long, as you make each link also a ==[[heading]]== which is a little too much. The ToC is partially covered by the Socrates painting, as you have set it to a fixed width of 750px. Many links appear multiple times, like Wittgenstein, or 15 minutes, I wonder why? As you know, you can create subpages like User:Ludvikus/sandbox, and move stuff there, using the user page as overview. Also, you can have old talked moved from your talk page to an archive automatically, by e.g. User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto.-- Mattheaddiscuß! O 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'll try to get to that later. Right now I'm very busy with several and multiple deletion proposals. But I appreciate you advice, and will do my best to put it to some good use. Yours truly, --Ludvikus05:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated disruption of an AfD discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Ludvikus, you asked me last night for guidance on how to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)|Protocols of Zion AfD]. I had already given you several final warnings to stop to stop being disruptive (see above), so I was pleased that you asked for advice on how to proceed. I took the time to give you a lengthy reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion. Unfortunately, several hours later you were back again at the AfD, when you inserted another huge out-of-sequence block of test at the top of the AfD discussion (I have now moved it to the bottom of the discussion), but this is precisely what you had been warned about, and precisely what I asked you not to do: at the end of my reply to you last night, I wrote "add it at the end of the discussion", complete with the italics. So please don't claim that you didn't know.
I still want to believe that you meant what you wrote last night, when you said that you just wanted to state your case rather than to disrupt. So when your block expires, please can you try to follow the advice you asked me to give you? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely. You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit.
When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.
Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems. (If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.) Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.
I'm rather shocked that you are blocking me for merely misunderstanding your interpretation of WP rules. I was merely editing my own commentary - revising it. That, to my understanding, is universal WP practice. Are you saying that I cannot edit my own commentary? What a big surprise that is for me.
You also are doing Wikipedia a great dis-service my taking ONE DAY away from my time of FIVE DAYS to defend all those articles on the grounds i=of a transgression which you so easily repaired by Cut & Pasting it to the bottom in sequence.
Quite frankly, I'm seriously contemplating abandoning Wikipedia as a great waste of my time.
You, BrownHairedGirl, are proving also to be a great vdisappointment.
It seems to me that Gang Rule applies at Wikipedia.
Look at this. At the earliest, I'm second in the sequence, with a large Block. But now I'm put at the bottom by one, or both of you, and am being Blocked for a day as well. How do you explain and justify that?
[26][27][28]
Look at this. At the earliest, I'm second in the sequence, with a large Block. But now I'm put at the bottom by one, or both of you, and am being Blocked for a day as well. How do you explain and justify that?
[29][30][31]
Look at this. At the earliest, I'm second in the sequence, with a large Block. But now I'm put at the bottom by one, or both of you, and am being Blocked for a day as well. How do you explain and justify that?
[32][33][34]
Look at this. At the earliest, I'm second in the sequence, with a large Block. But now I'm put at the bottom by one, or both of you, and am being Blocked for a day as well. How do you explain and justify that?
[35][36][37]
As above, you have been blocked for repeated disruption of an AFD discussion in beach of WP:TPG, despite having had multiple warnings. I have no intention of investigating whether or not you are on good terms with other editors, because that was not why you were blocked. Nor does being a valuable editor justify disruption. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BHG
OK, but you apparently are not reading my defense below.
I urge that you at least read what I say.
My comments belong at the Top in sequence - not at the bottom of the sequence.
Therefore, you are mistaken about my disruption.
After you explained the rules to me I simply followed your instructions.
It seems to me that you mistakenly believe that my comments belong at the BOTTOM.
They do not. They belong at the TOP where they were originally - since I was the SECOND one to respond to IZAK's Deletion Proposal.
Can you at least acknowledge that you UNDERSTAND what I'm saying to you?
I am desperately trying to Assume Good Faith on your part - but it's becoming very difficult for me to do so since you seem to be completely ignoring my defense.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
It is alleged that I've made an out-of-sequence comment on a Project/deletion page.
* I am allegedly being Blocked for that, and my comment has been moved to the bottom of the sequence.
* In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I was the second editor, right after the deletion nominator, who made a comment.
* I therefore I ask that my Block be rescinded on the ground of error by the blocking administrator.
* I further request that my comment be placed back in sequence in its proper original position, which immediately after the deletion nomination proposal.
Decline reason:
Decline. It was requested you not move your content out of order, and you did. You claim to be second, you were 5th. You even admit that below this statement. Yet, you continually added your statement out of place. Please also cease your obsession with horizontal lines. These are to be used only sparingly in Wikipedia talk pages and your use is inappropriate. — Metros00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
PS: I was the fifth (5th) Project participant in the Sequence discussing the Deletion proposal (so I belong at the Top after the 4th Voice/Vote):[38]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
It seems I am still not understood (and on that I see it's probably my fault - my own lack of clarity)
1. I initially had the Good Faith belief that I could place my comment immediately after the nominator.
2.
3. I was corrected in my error by Administrator User:BrownHairedGirl (a.k.a. BHG).
4. So my place in the sequence (I learned) is Number Five (5th place).
5. However, thereafter, BHG placed me at the Bottom of the sequence (at the time), making me Number Seventeen (17th place).
6. It is being out of sequence for which I'm Blocked - but that's because BHG is under the mistaken belief
that I belong in the current 17th place, rather than the 5th place in the sequence.
7. Accordingly, I am being Blocked because I did not accept the 17th place.
8. But the 17th place is out of sequence in which I've been place by BHG.
9. Therefore, if anyone should be Blocked for my being out of sequence, it should be BHG who placed me there out of sequence.
10. I should be placed in the proper sequence - which is Nnumber Five - and not Number Seventeen
were I currently remain (out of sequence).
11. I hope I've succeeded in clarifying the matter.
12. As I'm still blocked, I hope someone will excercise the Bold Wikipedia initiative and place me back as Number Five.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for disrupting the AfD; not simply for putting your comments out of sequence. You do not seem to understand this, nor do you appear to care that your behavior was disruptive. — Haemo04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sorry to see you having some trouble, Ludvicus. Given what has gone before, may I suggest that you take a deep breath and really look at what the several admins here are saying to you, especially User talk:BrownHairedGirl, who has been extraordinarily helpful in her comments. Given that you have recently returned from an extended block, it is unlikely that further disruption will be tolerated, and quite likely that any further blocks would be permanent. Allow the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints) to proceed, and go with the consensus that arises. Taking the time to learn about how Wikipedia works will make you a far more effective editor. Banno07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Banno,
It is unfortunate that in all this time you, and therefore Wikipedia, have not developed fairness and justice into the procedures under which an editor is Blocked or Banned.
It is generally unacceptable, in American jurisprudence, for example, to bring up the fact that you were convicted previously of Bank Rubbery, during your current trial for Murder.
It is fundamentally unfair and unjust for you to mention your Block/Banning previously, while the "trial" of my Blocking is still going on now and here.
As you know, but other editors do not, you were a passionate editor at Philosophy and at the same time the very Adminitrator who Blocked me. That, Banno, is generally understood as a conflict of interests.
But since you (in my opinion) introduced that previous Block/Ban here, I now find it necessary to inform Wikipedia readers as to what that was all about.
At Philosophy one editor, by WP known as Edward Bruckner, dominated that Page, insisting that Philosophy is Rational.
He, and others, including yourself, believed and supported the claim that Philosophy is Rational.
I, on the other hand, persistently tried to show that though that is a Majority opinion in the West, in other parts of the World, as in the former Soviet Union, as well as contemporary China, Philosophy reflects not Rationality, but quite the opposite, namely Class interests (a term which I'm surprised is currently in Red - no pun intended) [39]. This Huge school of thought includes not only Marxism, but most of the subsequent schools such as Deconstruction and Semiotics which do not belong to the Anglo-American close-nit family.
Unfortunately, you did not listen then, as you do not listen now, to the minority opinion, which is the one I'm voicing here now, but remind me that unless I comply with the unfair directive(s) of Blocking Administrator(s), I will be Blocked and Banned again.
That concludes my explanation why you, Banno, had Blocked me unfairly some time before.
At present, Banno, the issue seems quite simple, really, if you only try to listen to me now, as you have not done at that other time, over at Philosophy.
Adminstrator User:BrownHairedGirl believes that I'm posting my comments inproperly, out of sequence, and that I belong at the Bottom, as Number 17.
I maintain that she's mistaken, that I belong at the Top as Number 5.
Please address yourself to the issue spelled out immediately above. You use of the conclusory word disruptive is not only infammatory but it clouds this simple issue I've just spelled out: where in the sequence do I belong? at 5 (as I maintain) or at 17 (as BrownHairedGirl does)?
PS: Banno, since your not only an Administrator, but a Philosopher, and I think I know your Wikipedia Encyclopedic position well enough to conclude that you probably think that Marxism is not a Philosophy, but something like a school of social thought. Nevertheless, you cannot deny that the term Marxist philosophy exists, even here at Wikipedia. So how come Class interests is in Red? Banno, do you think it's possible that the threat of Blocking me forever might possibly be due to the fact that I'm not properly representing those class interests? Now you may think that the question is irrelevant. So let me explain. I'm asking you now to give yourself a break, and think hard how you can improve Wikipedia so that productive, knowledgable, and well informed editors are not wrongfully Blocked or Banned forever because some well-intentioned Administrator believes another editor (me) should go to the Bottom (#17) of the list in sequence instead of the Top (#5).
Ludvikus, it's quite simple: as with any other talk page (see WP:TPG), new comments belong at the bottom of the AfD debate. I moved your comments to the bottom of the debate as it stood when they were moved, because you had wrongly inserted them higher up.
You had previously made several disruptive contributions to the discussion, which were removed. That does not somehow entitle you to a particular slot in the discussion, because that's not how talk pages work: comments are added at the bottom when they are added, that's all.
And that's how it's going to stay. When you are unblocked, if there is anything you want to add to debate, please add it at the bottom. And please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please do read the talk page guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have Printed and Read them last night. They are not helpful, nor are you, though I'm assuming Good Faith on your part. The issue is how to participate in an Adf, is it not?
My experience at previous Adf's was that I never altered the text of another editor - but Formating was not a problem.
I did not know - until you came along - that it is allegedly improper to put the opposing view immediately below the Proposal. That kind of reasoning on my part was based on American Jurisprudence. When you informed otherwise, I desisted.
My doing the above was in Good Faith - as you are required to assume.
I did my best to comply with your advise as to WP procedure.
When you informed me that my comments must be in place, that's what I tried to do.
I tried to get back in line, in sequence. My place in that sequence is #5, not where you say I must stay, at #17, and had placed my by Cut & Paste..
It is you who emphasize that I'm Blocked for this sequence issue alone - so why will you not comply with the very rule you insist I had violated? Why won't you Cut & Paste my Comment into spot #5?
Be that as it may, BHG, it appears to me that you are mistaken once again in the new issue you raise now.
You imply, by the above, that I'm not allowed to alter/correct my comment(s) at place #17, correct?
It appears that you are saying that I cannot even insert a subcomment in that place, place #17, right?
Having recklessly Blocked me Ex-Post-Facto previously, I now fear that you will Block me for any error as to Form alone.
Furthermore, I'v just noticed what clearly appears the Bad Faith action on the part of editor User:IZAK. Nowing that you have blocked me, and that therefore I cannot defend myself, he has nevertheless posted the same complaint for which I'm being blocked now by you, adding the dishonest accusation that I've even altered his words.
While you're contemplating what I ask here (regarding Formating & Talk page Commentary placement) I hope you have the same persistence and promptness with IZAK as you've applied to me. Notice that after you advised him that you are taking care of the matter, and asked him that he alter his ways with me, he said OK, ok, but immediately below expanded his charge against me, dishonestly attacking my person, and saying falsely that I even altered his words.
Are you going to be as harsh and prompt with him as you have been with me?
Look what he's currently doing on the Administrators' Notice Board (or whereever he's posted the complaint to you).
It appears to me that he wishes me to be Blocked Twice for vthe same alleged offense.
I believe that kind of behavior is an abuse of the Disciplinary procedure at Wikipedia. It is far worse than anything I have done for which you've banned me. He says that I even altered his words.
If you really are acting in Good Faith, than you have no choice, by the standards of justice, but to block him for 24 hours. You have repeatedly worned him not to inflame the matter. You explicitly told him not to say such a thing as to question my sincerity. Nevertheless, while you are Blocking me, he's posted the Dishonest charge that I've even altered his words when you have found that all I've done is place my comments out of sequence.
What are you going to do about this abusive behavior against my person by IZAK, who also introduced previous, on his own initiative, that Anglo-Saxion four-letter-word which you very well know I never actually used?
I expect you to be no less harsh with IZAK as you are being with me during the Block.
reply to another editor's comment immediately below that comment, properly indente, and not repeating all the material which you have already posted.
That's all. Don't edit your previous comments, don't edit what anyone else has written, don't move your contributions around the page, don't make personal attacks (comment on the reasons to keep or delete the articles, not on the contributors), don't get angry, and try at all times to remain polite and WP:CIVIL. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, move on means move on. Just let it go.
I do not intend to take any further action against either you or IZAK over what has happened already
with regard to that AfD, and I will object if any other admin does.
You were blocked for the disruption, and that issue is done.
I do not intend to do any further cleanup;
there doesn't seem to me to be anything sufficiently outrageous to justify removing it.
I don't see personal attacks against you by IZAK which warrant any further action (sucha s a block or further warnings),
but as I said above, if you want to pursue a complaint or to ask for comments to be deleted,
you can raise a complaint at WP:ANI.
I have said before that I think that will only serve to prolong the dispute,
and that I think it would be a bad idea, but you are always free to make a complaint if you want to.
--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hard to see the forest because of the trees.
*You say: I do not intend to take any further action against either [of] you. . . over what has happened already with regard to that AfD, and I will object if any other admin does.
That's what I needed to know. Thank you.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to here from you!. I was Blocked by an Administrator: User:BrownHairedGirl (BHG). Apparently she believed I was disruptive. What I dis was try to edit an AfD as to format, and I got into a disagreement with the AfD nominee, User:IZAK. Anyway, the Block was for 24 hours - it's partly a kind of punishment for "bad behavior." Actually, I did vnot know the fine details of Wikipedia Rules. This BHG finally decided that my place was spot 17, instead of spot 5, in sequence, on the AfD Project page. Anyway that process is fundamentally unfair. But that's life. Actually, I'm thinking serious of leaving Wikipedia forever. I do not like this kind of policing - and I'm a bit fed up with being unable to use logic in persuading people regarding scholarly issues. Hope I've answered your query. Cheers, --Ludvikus03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're all up stil on an AfD (Articles for Deletion). The tendency was to MERGE. But it seems to be swinging to KEEP now. Buy why are you asking me? Don't you know how to go there and see for yourself? Just click on anyone of the articles and click on the appropriate highlighted area within the notice. OK? --Ludvikus03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NYC? Thats pretty far away. I too prefer exposing anti-semitism and hatred in all its forms. Say, I have great interest in what you were saying earlier about philosophy reflecting class interests and not Rationality. As someone with a little interest in philosophy, this sounds intriguing. I realize that this is not really proper to discuss here, but if you have the time, would you mind to tell me about this conclusion? perhaps via email. I would appreciate if you could, but if not, thats ok I will try to manage. Thanks, Ostap04:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ostrap, that thesis is not mine - it's just standard Marxism. Just get any work on Marxism and you'll find all you'd want to know about that. But maybe the best bthing to do is start an article on it. Anyway, I have to go now - it's very late in NYC. --Ludvikus04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, "little interest" is my way of saying "no interest". I have no background in philosophy nor marxism. I figured if you were blocked over it, it must be controversial. I just wanted to be able to repeat the thesis to people I know who do have an interest in philosophy, in order to sound intelligent. Obviously I need help in that area, no? Ostap04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, you need to follow the whole process listed here: WP:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Just read carefully this process, and make the step by step.
Remember that AfD is not absolute. Even deleted via AfD, any article may be restored by Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sultan scatto2 - Poetry Reading.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sultan scatto2 - Poetry Reading.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war: Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War
And I've done only TWO and asked for your help. But instead of helping you're inflamming the situation accusing me of labeling his person. I ask you to be fair. You are not. You have mischaracterizede my three-words as an attack on his person. It was not. I ask you to retract that attack on my person. That is the least you could do right now. I only characterized what he did to me, his action. Please, please, please,... retract you attack on my person.
You are very clearly edit warring. 3RR says that you don't need to have more than 3 reverts the be in violation. If you continue edit warring I will block you if BrownHairedGirl does not do it first. You have been edit warring for weeks, and staying just under 3RR a day will not stop you from being blocked if you continue. 1 != 218:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say I accept on that. But Admin. User:Banno told me that nothing matters until you reach 3. But anyway, I've stopped. I summoned you precisely because I do not wish to engage in any Edit War. So what can you do to stop that. Can you give some clear constructive advice? I am proceeding with extreme caution with you - because I do not wish to create an opportunity for me to Blocked me like you have before. So please help. I am not the only one in this dispute there is just one other editor. It is him and I. Yours truly --Ludvikus18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On editing Wikipedia...
Ludvikus, we are all here to create good articles. Given the way in which the Wikipedia functions, an essential skill for editors is the ability to reach a consensus. This involves being able to accept opinions that differ from our own, to compromise, to accept that one's work will be changed and even deleted, and perhaps most importantly in your case, to mollify rather than aggravate those with whom one disagrees. I've been watching your edits since you first commenced working here, and it is my belief that this is the area with which you have the most difficulty. Your posts appear to be aimed more at accentuating rather than reducing disagreement. Doubtless this is not intentional, and shows a certain naivety about on-line etiquette rather than deliberate trolling. The question then is whether you are able to improve your ability to "get on" with other editors, or whether you are going to persist in helping to create deadlocked situations that require pages to be locked.
I was closely involved with the edits on the philosophy pages that resulted in your six-month block. You caused considerable disruption to several articles, effectively preventing work on them. The question in my mind is, was I correct to give you another opportunity to edit the Wikipedia, or should I have given you a permanent block? For this reason, I've been occasionally watching your edits, and helping where I can.
For the first few weeks after your return, you were apparently able to edit quite successfully. That is, you added content that was for the most part accepted by the community, you refrained from reverting or deleting other's edits, and your talk-space posts were properly formatted and sensible. In the last couple of weeks you seem to be returning to the behaviour that earned you a ban.
That your editing has attracted the attention of two or three other admins is very worrying. Although I would like to see you editing on the Wikipedia, I am not prepared to watch another time-consuming escalation of your disruption to the point where another administrator blocks you. If your edits cause further unreasonable disruption, I will block you. While it is possible, I doubt that any other admin who is properly aquainted with your edit history will see fit to unblock you. In effect, you will be banned from the Wikipedia.
I want to assure you that I do not wish this to happen. I would much rather see you edit in a more relaxed and less aggravating fashion, taking the occasional break in order to clear the air, allowing others to make changes, avoiding incivility and edit waring.
Take a deep breath and think carefully; don't just shoot off a reply. What you do in the next day or two will decide whether you remain on the Wikipedia or not. Take a break, perhaps. Allow things to cool down. I doubt that you will get a third chance at being a successful editor. Make the most of this one. Banno03:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add my strong support to Banno's warning, and also note that I too don't want to see Ludvikus indef-blocked. However, in the few days that I have been watching, Ludvikus has been highly disruptive and has not only entered into heated disputes, but stoked them with aggressive accusations against other editors. Along the way, huge screeds of text have been copied from one talk to another whether simple link would have done, making it exceptionally difficult to follow the thread of any discussions.
Please, Ludvikus, step back from the brink now and calm down; as Banno suggested, please take as long a break as you need to ensure that when you return to wikipedia, you feel less angry. I repeat that I too don't want to see you being blocked, but it is important that you understand that you will not be allowed to continue to disprupt wikipedia as you have done in the last few days. ---BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Banno, your advice seems well thought out to me, clear, and practical, and I think I can follow it.
Dear User:BrownHairedGirl, your conclusory observation about me, that I "stoked them with aggressive accusations against other editors" is not helpful at all, but is instead inflammatory in the extreme. You know very well that had I done any of that, Banno would have been the first one to Block me. However, I do appreciate that you've been fair to the extent that you've taken strong action against that other alleged disruptive editor. The fact is that the disruption at Wikipedia only involved two other editors, User:IZAK, and User:Mikkalai. With respect to the former, I sincerely did not know how to participate in an AfD. For that you have disciplined me with a 24 hour Block. I might add that while that's was going on thirteen (13) articles on which I and many other editors have been work were nominated for deletion. I think these are extremely important. IZAK thinks otherwise. But that's a difference of opinion. There is no longer any problem between us. That now brings me to User:Mikkalai. The articles he and I are working on involve racism and antisemitism. As you must know, such articles are bound to be controversial. In particular, I'm thinking of Jewish Bolshevism, which is, among other evil things, a slur against the Jewish people. I maintain that this article, as well as those associated with it, in fact currently embody racist and antisemitic views. My desire is to sweep clean Wikipedia of such trash. In that regard, I do understand that I must work with other editors - I must reach a concensus', as Banno says.
However, BHG, my current difference is only with User:Mikkalai. I have no outstanding difference with any other editor. And for you to imply that I do is not only unfair, but it impeads my work of trying to sweap clean Wikipedia of its Racist and Antisemitic content. Let me be specific on this: it is my carefully thought out position that to p[ut in statistics about how many Jews were or were not Communists in an article which is supposed to be about an ethnic slur is effectively to justify, explain, or otherwise account for, why Jews were victimized. That is not the job of Wikipedians in such a context.
Let me give you an example. In the United States, African Americans were treated as inferior by their counterpart "whites" in the south. In justification of that, IQ's or intelligence quotient were studied. Do you think it would be proper for Wikipedians to include statistics on intelligence in the WP article "Negro"? I would say absolutely not.
So that's the substance of the source of friction as I see it.
Because I see that you are "fair" in your actions (you've just disciplined that other editor) I am somewhat less aggetated by what to say above. Nevertheless, you must be aware that when you make such judgments, as you have above, you may substantially deminish my effectiveness at Wikipedia - other editors will be less inclined to take me seriously. In that case, there will be no point in my remaining with Wikipedia.
So I ask you, BHG, to be more precise at exactly what it is that you find I did wrong. Because other editors are going to read that paragraph above. Do you think my opions on Racism and Antisemitism will be taken seriously if I'm pegged by you as a "stocker"?
But, like I say, in your action you've been fair to the extent that you've now Blocked that other editor for 48-hours.
I would appreciated very much if you revised your criticism of me in the above. I think the incident with User:IZAK has been resolved - and that disruption was unintentional. It would be good if you give the matter of my apparently unresolved dispute with Administrator User:Mikkalai a more precise statement. I certainly do not wish to cause any disruption at Wikipedia. And I will do my best to follow both of your recommendations, you Banno, and you, BrownHairedGirl.
So it would contribute tremendously to subside the disruption at Wikipedia, if you, BHG, revised your language in the above where I can really learn from your observation as to my Wikipedia transgressions which you say you observed.
Hi Ludvikus. After reading your response to BHG and Banno, I wanted to see if I could clarify something. When you're describing your intent to remove anti-Semitic content from Wikipedia, it's hard to tell whether you intend to censor Wikipedia, or place material in context. There's an important difference between the two, and I can't tell which path you're intending to pursue.
Now clearly if some vandal creates a purely libelous article defaming jews (or any other religion or ethnicity for that matter), it should be deleted or reverted. However, if someone wanted to mention in an article on slavery or civil rights, that people used a misperception of intelligence to justify racism, that would be valid (assuming it was sourced). The idea being that it's important that Wikipedia present the past (or present) in context. After all, we are an uncensored encyclopedia. (I'd argue that it's important to present the lessons of the past so they're not repeated, but that's a personal view, not a policy). Best, --Bfigura(talk)22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent distinction. Material in context of course. The article(s) in question concern Jewish Bolshevism (and the Polish version of the expression, which concerns the Polish word which begins with the letter Z). I have no problem discussing any form of bigotry. But the fact is that such articles inevitably may also attract unintentional (I will not say what) who will perhaps unintentionally try to justify the bigotry with statistics. For example, in the United States African Americans, when they were still called by the racist word "negro" were sometimes discussed by their crime rate. That's not proper. It does not belong in an article on the bigotry. Rather, it tends to shift the blame to the victim of the Bigotry, rather than keep it where it belongs, on the perpetrator. Yours truly, --Ludvikus23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, these articles are full of statistics about the number of Jews who were or were not Bolshevics. The irony is that since the Jews were the minority, there were always less Jews who were Bolsheviks than Russian, Ukrainian or Polish Bolsheviks. Yet there are no articles called Russian Bolshevism, Ukrainian Polishevism, or Polish Bolshevism. That's in part because all four are Racist notions only one of which - Jewish Bolshevism - was coined. And do you know why? Because until Zionism, Nazism, and Israel, Jews were always the minority. I mention Nazism because it eliminated Jews and Bolsheviks by that other method, if you know what I mean. Cheers, --Ludvikus23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Through their unfortunate experience, African Americans have contributed to the civilizations of the world an understanding of how Racism works and how we may stamp it out. Their culture, perhaps more than any other people on earth, made us in the United States acutely sensitive to how language works to continue human bigotry. Changing how a people are to be called is an important way of ridding ourselves of bigorty. Even "Afro-American" is now considered a Pejorative expression for the people. Why on earth should it be different with "Jewish Bolshevism"? It is merely a Pejorative expression. Nothing more. It follows that as Wikipedians that we have no business putting in the statistics about how many Jews were this or that. What difference does it make? "Negroes" were deemed "inferior" by Racist Americans until the Civil Rights Movement changed that fundamentally. Would you include in the WP article "Negro" a discussion of IQ's? Certainly not. Neither should there be any similar statistics in "Jewish Bolshevism." Yours truly, --Ludvikus23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI01:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. you should probably archive this page. I came to say: don't leave, and don't get blocked. Your work on the protocols is valuable. Yours truly, (haha thats your line) Ostap02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ostrap. I appreciate your saying so a lot. But if you believe that, you should make your better known. You should be more vocal about that. Telling me that makes me feel good - but it does not help in keeping me here. You are free to study anything you wish. Why don't you look at my recent work and click on the watch botton at what interests you. And then you can jump in and say what you think. Best to you - I hope there were more as nice Wikipedians as you - but my experience so far is to the contrary. Yours truly, --Ludvikus02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI02:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although we are required to Assume Good Faith, it seems certain to me that you've just Vandalized my {{:Stub}} on the Author Mikhail Khostov and his book. I strongly urge you to reconsider, to Revert your wrongful action, and to end your Edit War with me. Yours truly, --Ludvikus05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
Okay. People have been telling you multiple times that you are under last warnings and only this far away from another long block. By continuing your trolling on WP:ANI, and finally by creating the Mikhail Khostov article, you did it. You were evidently creating this stub, without any assertion of notability, precisely in order to underline the alleged non-notability of the subject, in order to disparage the use of references to his work in a dispute at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. This is the definition of WP:POINT disruption. I'm blocking you for two months; that's mild compared with what others have warned you about. Fut.Perf.☼06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
There is no adequate book on the Russian Civil War. The stub on the author and book were created in Good Faith. I should not be blocked. This is really unfair and in Bad Faith against me. --Ludvikus 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Apparently you haven't understood all the messages left on your talk page. You were repeatedly asked to stop your behaviour, and abide to consensus. Wikipedia is not a battleground and your editing was disruptive, and sometimes worse. You were warned it was your last chance. — -- lucasbfrtalk07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Will I be weeping tears? Crocodile ones, perhaps.
Given the outright nonsensicality of your edits, my sympathy is non-existent.
Chinese shadows, indeed...Moreschi Talk 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You got the wrong guy!!! I'm the guy being described by Administrator User:Mikkalai below:
“
I am fine with article protected with this glaring nonsense in the middle. I will not mediate with this obviously mentally damaged person. If wikipedia don't want or cannot deal with such people, my only answer here is the revert button. If you don't see the idiotism or intentional disruption in this page, let us wait until some newspaper makes a laughing stock of it. `'Míkka 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
”
If that's not trolling, I do not know what is. Please Unblock me. And Block the true Troller: User:Mikkalai.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am not the Troller. You got the wrong guy. The Troller is that other guy. You all know who I mean. But he's got more friends than I do. And he's a Wikipedia Administrator and I'm not. You are being unfair. Please reconsider your own behavior. What you are doing to me is really what you are doing to Wikipedia. It is very, very, bad for me to be attacked in this way by what appears to be the majority. Please reconsider what you are doing. No good editors will stay here. I certainly will not. The Rules at Wikipedia need to be applied uniformly. I now understand very well the Founding Fathers of the United States and the need for the separation of powers. Because there is no such thing at Wikipedia you all have to be extremely careful when you apply these disciplinary measures. You are hurting Wikipedia more than you are hurting me by Blocking me for Two Months simply because I would not submit to bullying. That is not right. Please reconsider. Do not allow this kind of bullying against me to continue.
Decline reason:
Blatant trolling. Plus you state that you will not stay here which indicates to me that your unblock request wasn't serious anyway. — Yamla14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Please stop your Kafkaesque attacks on me as in The Trial by Franz Kafka. If this Wrongful Block continues, I will not come back after the Block ends. Timidity should not be a condition for staying at Wikipedia. What for G-d's sake is wrong with saying that? I will not come back after the Block ends in 2-months. How does that violate any WP rule? Is the ultimate Rule - conformity to the Majority? Are we here in George Orwell's, Nineteen eighty-four? You really expect an editor to tolerate this kind of abuse? --Ludvikus 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned a number of times for your actions/behavior, yet you persisted. You knew full well that you would be blocked if you continued this behavior, and here you are. We're only enforcing policy. There is no abuse here. An uninvolved administrator performed a perfectly legitimate block. Also, Mikkalai was blocked for his comments directed to you on October 21. However, the block was later overturned. Nishkid64 (talk)15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Please unblock this unfair block. It's really not my fault. It's the fault of that powerful Administrator who promised to engage in an Edit War with me and is doning precisely what he promised he would do to me. It is not my fault. Please unblock and be fair for the sake of Wikipedia. --Ludvikus15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Repeating this over and over again won't make it happen. You are not supposed to use this template multiple times in a row. There's been enough independent review now. Fut.Perf.☼15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Just a quick note to say that having been involved with Ludvikus's disruptive antics for over a week, and having blocked him for a brief period last week, I support this 2-month block and would support a longer one if anyone wants to increase it. Quite apart from the WP:POINT edits and the trolling, the endless copying of discussions between talk pages has severely disrupted discussions, and he has been repeatedly warned about that as well as the rest of the misbehaviour. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1 1934 ''The Protocols''.PDF listed for deletion
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dearborn Independent.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dearborn Independent.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:For Historical Review.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:For Historical Review.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Glob5.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Noontide Press.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Noontide Press.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
Thanks for uploading Image:WIhr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Umberto Eco Eco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Umberto Eco Eco.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Scire quod sciendum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
Back in September 2007, you added a POV tag to this article. Other editors have since attempted to address the concerns you raised. If you feel their edits have addressed your concerns, please consider removing the POV tag or commenting on the talk page about why those edits are insufficient. Thanks so much. croll (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes in the opening - to reflect the antisemitic and racist nature of the organization - stating what is in fact common scholarly knowledge about the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Let me answer what I think is the easiest question first. I don't think there's any reason to do anything about that dangling talk page. It all looks pretty old and it's not hurting anyone, neither does it look to relevant to anything at the real Protocols page. At the same time, it's usually not a good idea to wipe out the history of what anyone has said. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. I discovered it by chance because I omitted the article "The." That page seems to be dangling in the 4th dimension of Wikipedia's cyberspace. However, it belongs with the Talk page of "The Protocols." So my point is the opposite of you you think I want to do. I want to restore it to the place where it belongs. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image had no license. I saw that you putted a Public Domain license. The link source you gave to me the hole page is copyrighted, but due to the date (1599) it can be considered as {{PD-old}}. Sincerly, Sdrtirs (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protocol tags
I am a bit reluctant to block for minor nuisance tagging, and I suspect they'd be back as soon as it was over, with an axe to grind. I suggest an RfC, which would might flush out a useful opinion, or else it would allow any further disruption to be dealt with summarily. Having spent time around some 9/11-related articles, I've learned that blocking determined POV warriors inflames the issue: what the article really needs are more eyes. Acroterion(talk)20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Thanks for uploading Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_P6086AL.JPG){kind=link}
_P6566AL.JPG){kind=link}
